VIRGINIA E. LEPRINCE AND ACHILLE E. LEPRINCE, APPELLANTS,
v.
NORMAN MCLEOD, M.D., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this medical malpractice case, the court affirmed judgment n.o.v. for a defendant-doctor after a jury verdict for the plaintiffs. The court held that because the plaintiff's evidence failed to exclude non-negligent causes of injury to the patient's ureters during a hysterectomy, submission to the jury would constitute speculation rather than proper proof of negligence.
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish negligence because they did not prove that negligent causes were the only possible reasons for the injury. The judgment n.o.v. was properly granted because submitting the case to the jury under these circumstances would amount to speculation rather than proof of negligence.
“The plaintiffs did not establish that the negligent causes were the only possible reasons for the injury. Failing this, it would be inviting the jury to engage in a guessing game to submit the case to them.”
Establishes the key legal principle that plaintiffs must eliminate non-negligent causes of injury to survive summary judgment in medical malpractice cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. McLeod performed a hysterectomy on Mrs. LePrince, during which her left ureters were injured, necessitating a second corrective operation. Medical…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judgment N.O.V. cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs, in a medical malpractice suit, appeal from a judgment n. o. v. for the defendant-doctor following a jury verdict of $3,050 in favor of the plaintiffs.
The defendant performed a hysterectomy upon Mrs. LePrince and during the course of such operation her left ureters (there were two on the left side) were injured requiring a second operation to correct the condition. The medical testimony did not pinpoint the cause of these damaged ureters 1 but, attributed it variously to: (1) a stitch being passed through them during the operation; (2) being crushed, angulated or kinked by a surgical clamp thereby causing occlusion; (3) becoming degenerated because of a disturbance to the blood supply; (4) swelling or inflammation as a result of the surgery; (5) the operation itself may cause a diminishment in the blood supply to the ureter which would result in an obstruction, causing a fistula.2
Of the five possible causes of the damaged ureters only two could be attributed to any failure to exercise due care during the operation. On the basis of the record before us, it is our opinion that this case is controlled by Lane v. White, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 14, wherein it was held that the plaintiff’s proof failed because there were several possible causes of the injury, and the evidence did not eliminate the non-negligent causes.
In the instant case, the same is true. The plaintiffs did not establish that the negligent causes were the only possible reasons for the injury. Failing this, it would be inviting the jury to engage in a guessing game to submit the case to them.3 The trial judge was eminently correct in granting the defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v., and his action is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wale v. Barnes, 278 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1973)…tiorari to review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal reported at 261 So. 2d 201 affirming the trial court’s directed verdict in favor of the defendants in a malpractice case. Such decision in expressly relying upon Le Prince v. McLeod, 171 So. 2d 189 (Fla.App.3d 1965); and Lane v. White, 167 So. 2d 14 (Fla. App.3d 1964), creates a misapplication of law as a basis for our review inasmuch as the factual situations in the cited cases vary materially from the facts set forth in the body of the opini…
-
Hernandez v. Clinica Pasteur, Inc., 293 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…as justification for the trial court’s holding that there was insufficient evidence to submit the issue of proximate cause to the jury. The decisions relied upon are Lane v. White, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 14, and LePrince v. McLeod, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 189. In Lane, the first cited opinion, the plaintiff alleged malpractice in that he was not bound so that he could not thrash about when coming out from under the effects of an anesthetic administered during an operation. The patient suffered a hernia w…
-
Wale v. Barnes, 261 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ultimately resulting in the brain injuries of young Gary, or that any of the injuries complained of were caused by that negligence of defendants. It is our opinion that this case is governed by the rules stated in Le Prince v. McLeod, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 189 and Lane v. White, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So. 2d 14, and therefore the trial court was correct in granting a directed verdict for the defendants. We have considered the three points argued for reversal, and conclude that no error having been demonstrat…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lane v. White, 167 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Ada Horowitz v. Schwartz, 74 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1954)